Evidence that God Exists

[Ammonius_Saccus]

i’ve given you evidence - you’ve simply chosen not to address it except to say “not good enough”. ***why ***isn’t it good enough? what’s wrong with the evidence?

why would you come here asking for people to present you with reasons for their beliefs when you aren’t prepared to offer any for your own?

i don’t get it.

And I presented the arguments that are given by other experts in the field. All we have in this field is theoretical possibilities. If you really think you know what happened just before after the Big Bang, write a paper about. If it is correct and has the evidence to support it you will win the Nobel Prize.

 

[john_doran]

And I presented the arguments that are given by other experts in the field. All we have in this field is theoretical possibilities. If you really think you know what happened just before after the Big Bang, write a paper about. If it is correct and has the evidence to support it you will win the Nobel Prize.

i don’t think “argument” means what you think it means…

look, man - all you’ve done is assert, over and over again, “possibly, what you say is wrong”, and that’s not an argument.

explain to me how an actually infinite number of temporal moments can be constituted by successive addition; explain to me how the proliferation of cosmological models entails that we can’t know whether most of them are correct when they conclude that there is a moment in the finite past where* t*=0 and the universe began. explain these things - give me an argument.

i’ll ask you again: why are you asking for*** reasons*** from us when you refuse to provide any of your own?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

i don’t think “argument” means what you think it means…

look, man - all you’ve done is assert, over and over again, “possibly, what you say is wrong”, and that’s not an argument.

explain to me how an actually infinite number of temporal moments can be constituted by successive addition; explain to me how the proliferation of cosmological models entails that we can’t know whether most of them are correct when they conclude that there is a moment in the finite past where* t*=0 and the universe began. explain these things - give me an argument.

Look at the link I provided.

i’ll ask you again: why are you asking for*** reasons*** from us when you refuse to provide any of your own?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

i don’t think “argument” means what you think it means…

look, man - all you’ve done is assert, over and over again, “possibly, what you say is wrong”, and that’s not an argument.

explain to me how an actually infinite number of temporal moments can be constituted by successive addition; explain to me how the proliferation of cosmological models entails that we can’t know whether most of them are correct when they conclude that there is a moment in the finite past where* t*=0 and the universe began. explain these things - give me an argument.

i’ll ask you again: why are you asking for*** reasons*** from us when you refuse to provide any of your own?

Look at the link I provided.

 

[john_doran]

the link to the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy?

i’m not sure if you noticed, but you’re on a public internet forum where people discuss things…i can’t discuss anything with the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. if you’ve read and understood the article you want me to read, then you will be able easily to distill the essential argument for me, the one you believe so neatly dispatches the kalam cosmological argument, and we can discuss it. we can discuss it.

---

oh, and does that link include an explanation as to why you ask for reasons for other peoples’ beliefs that you lack for your own?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

the link to the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy?

i’m not sure if you noticed, but you’re on a public internet forum where people discuss things…i can’t discuss anything with the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. if you’ve read and understood the article you want me to read, then you will be able easily to distill the essential argument for me, the one you believe so neatly dispatches the kalam cosmological argument, and we can discuss it. we can discuss it.

---

oh, and does that link include an explanation as to why you ask for reasons for other peoples’ beliefs that you lack for your own?

It provides the information better than I can. I don’t see why you want me to re-write for you. Just read the link. If you link it is error, we can discuss it.

 

[john_doran]

It provides the information better than I can. I don’t see why you want me to re-write for you. Just read the link. If you link it is error, we can discuss it.

it’s a long article - transcribe the parts that you think are most apposite, and we’ll go from there.

 

[Freebird]

Why should it be more advanced in human? What does more highly advanced mean in this context?

More highly advanced meaning, we are instituted with a sense that moral exists, setting us apart from any other creature.

…So? The “moral” behavior of pack animals (which do kill each other) in obviously going to be different than humans.

Animals do kill each other; I never said they did not. But they do not kill due to things such as emtional pain–only humans can have feelings like love and regret–and are capable of acting violently due to these feelings.

Nor do animals have “moral”.

It benefits the woman if she doesn’t want to have a baby.
…So? There are costs to have a baby that can be avoided through abortion.

Abortion has been proven to put prolonged emotional strain on women. And we destroy a future member of our species. How is that beneficial?

Suicide can give benefits to the genes the individual carries.

I’m appalled. Suicide…is capable of…benefits? The individual is DEAD!

I am using the intuition to include what we get from culture at a very young age.

Then you are using it out of context. What we are exposed to as young people determines our future actions. We have innate selfish desire and are innately sinful (something only the Creator of the created can destroy), but the desire will not become so destructive if the individual is sheltered from or chooses to deny a morally evil society (if that factor is provided).

Because it benefits the individuals. Why does it matter if they are really responible?

Benefits WHICH individuals? Obviously not the ones doing what is regarded as socially wrong.

I would suggest you read the book I linked to on Amazon. It is a quick read and goes over all these issues better than I can.

You seem to enjoy diverting your basis for belief to links to avoid explaining them. Thank you, but I would rather see what you have to say about what you really believe.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

More highly advanced meaning, we are instituted with a sense that moral exists, setting us apart from any other creature.

Animals do kill each other; I never said they did not. But they do not kill due to things such as emtional pain–only humans can have feelings like love and regret–and are capable of acting violently due to these feelings.

Nor do animals have “moral”.

I don’t see what the your problem is with these things. Humans have evolved differently from other species. What is the issue here?

Abortion has been proven to put prolonged emotional strain on women. And we destroy a future member of our species. How is that beneficial?

It has benefits. Why do think woman do it? But (artificial) abortion had very little (if any) effect on our evolution.

I’m appalled. Suicide…is capable of…benefits? The individual is DEAD!

Yes, it is a capable of benefits. Think of a family that has an individual that has severe emotional problem (like chemical depression). It will benefit the family (which share genes at a higher rate than random individuals). It the depressive kills himself the family will not have to waster resources of this person. Think of the benefits to pre-agriculture family band if this individual killed himself.

Then you are using it out of context. What we are exposed to as young people determines our future actions.

And our culture is part of what we are exposed to that effects are future actions.

We have innate selfish desire and are innately sinful

Sure we have selfish desires, but we also have unselfish desires.

Benefits WHICH individuals? Obviously not the ones doing what is regarded as socially wrong.

No, but it helps the majority of the individuals. Think of two sets of individuals. One that lives in anarchy and one that has formal set of rules and regulations and a way to enforce these rules. Which one is more likely to benefit the individuals?

edit - This post is a big mess. I am too tired. I will write something better tomorrow.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

it’s a long article - transcribe the parts that you think are most apposite, and we’ll go from there.

Start and 3.2 and go through 4.5.

 

[Freebird]

I don’t see what the your problem is with these things. Humans have evolved differently from other species. What is the issue here?

Your original question was, “how do you know there is moral responsibility?” You agree we have evolved differently from other creatures, so you and I both conclude that, as humans, we have been set apart from the rest of the earth, because we have a sense of right and wrong. We have been designed with massive potential to do right, as God would not have created us in His image only to be destructive.

It has benefits. Why do think woman do it? But (artificial) abortion had very little (if any) effect on our evolution.

WHAT benefits?

Post-abortion syndrome (PAS) is a term used to describe a set of mental health characteristics which some researchers claim to have observed in women following an abortion.[48] The psychopathological symptoms attributed to PAS are similar to those of post-traumatic stress disorder, but have also included, “repeated and persistent dreams and nightmares related with the abortion, intense feelings of guilt and the ‘need to repair’”.[48] PAS is listed in neither the DSM-IV-TR nor the ICD-10. …Other studies have shown a correlation between abortion and negative psychological impact. A 1996 study found that suicide is more common after miscarriage and especially after induced abortion, than in the general population.[53] Additional research in 2002 reported that the risk of clinical depression was higher for women who chose to have an abortion compared to those who opted to carry to term — even if the pregnancy was unwanted.[54] Another study in 2006, which used data gathered over a 25-year period, found an increased occurrence of clinical depression, anxiety, suicidal behavior, and substance abuse among women who had previously had an abortion.[55] (Wikipedia)

If by artificial abortion you mean miscarrige, then miscarrige could in no way have the same degree of deteriorating effects on society than a concious abortion does; as miscarrige is an act of nature, while in contrast abortion is a man-made decision, executed by men; and the results of the actions are taken on by those who made the decision.

Yes, it is a capable of benefits. Think of a family that has an individual that has severe emotional problem (like chemical depression). It will benefit the family (which share genes at a higher rate than random individuals). If the depressive kills himself the family will not have to waster resources of this person. Think of the benefits to pre-agriculture family band if this individual killed himself.

It could be beneficial…Yeah. Maybe to race of robots.
Consider the emotional strain it would put on all of them! Imagine if an 11-year-old boy shot himself in front of his 4-year-old sister. She would never be the same, and the hurt gained from that experience would likely negatively affect her spouse, friends’, and childrens’ life. Sacrificing a few resources is a small price to pay for a future of depression or other emotional disorder due to loss.

(…I would be very surprised if you ran into a family whose child had committed suicide, and they told you they were grateful because now they didn’t have to feed him.)

And our culture is part of what we are exposed to that effects are future actions.

That’s exactly correct.

Sure we have selfish desires, but we also have unselfish desires.

Such as…? Why would we want to do anything unselfish if we do not have moral responsibility/obidience to God as a reason for doing so?

No, but it helps the majority of the individuals. Think of two sets of individuals. One that lives in anarchy and one that has formal set of rules and regulations and a way to enforce these rules. Which one is more likely to benefit the individuals?

The second; I see your point. Although as to why the individual would want to institute such a government without a desire to do moral good is beyond me.

A.S.: There is only so much I can say if you have already chosen not accept anything that has been presented to you thusfar. Best of luck in the future, and know that I’ll be praying for you.
God Bless!
~Bree

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

I will respond more fully tomorrow. Just too tired tonight.

Your original question was, “how do you know there is moral responsibility?” You agree we have evolved differently from other creatures, so you and I both conclude that, as humans, we have been set apart from the rest of the earth, because we have a sense of right and wrong. We have been designed with massive potential to do right, as God would not have created us in His image only to be destructive.

I agree that we have evolved differently. But so has every species. There is no need for our sense of right and wrong to have to have been given us by God. It could have evolved.

WHAT benefits?

 

[Seamus_Sully]

I am most confident that I will ask the following questions poorly.

I already know that there are many gaps in my questions.

However, the basic ideas are: How many models are used by the scientific communities in explaining the existence of being through to our time?

Another basic idea: How much agreement is there in the total scientific communities? Our planet is large and I have often wondered about the East and how their scientists think?

So, again, forgive my poor phraseologies and elementary science!

Concerning the scientific communities, how many models are involved when moving from the origin(s) of the universe(s) to 2007?

How many models are used to explain why being or things actually exist? Or, why is there something and not nothing?

How many models in exists for the organization of the physical universe(s)?

How many models exists for the forming of galaxies?

How many models exists for the forming of stars?

How many models exists for the forming of planets?

How many models exists for the movement of inanimate beings to animated beings?

What came first: DNA or the parts that make up DNA? How many models for this movement?

How many models exists for the explanation as to how Nature came into existence?

How many models exists for explaining how the laws of nature evolved?

How many models exists for explaining the laws that govern the movement from no life to life?

How many models exists for explaining how the laws that govern the physical evolution evolved?

Which laws came first? (second, third, fourth and so on)

How many laws are there?

Do we know all of the laws?

How many do we not know?

How many do we not understand?

How many models exists for explaining how these governing laws work together?

How many models exists for the explanation of tectonic plates?

How many models exists for the explanation of the geologic column?

How many models exists that explain how REASON permeates the physical universes?

How many models exists that explain why REASON is in us?

How many models exists that explain why all of the laws of the universe are true in every location in the universe(s)?

Did math evolve?

Does math exists outside of the human mind?

Did reason evolve?

Does reason exists outside of the human mind or brain?

From where did all of the reason in the universe come?

Well, I have enough questions for now!

 

[Neithan]

Start and 3.2 and go through 4.5.

Let’s start with 3.2-3.5.

3.2 Objection 1: The Universe Just Is

False objection, the universe is dynamic, not static. Demonstrated by the Argument from Change, or the Unmoved Mover.

3.3 Objection 2: Explaining the Individual Constituents Is Sufficient

Again this is wholly insufficient when one includes the Unmoved Mover. Matter-energy are dynamic, and therefore contingent. The Universe does not explain itself.

3.4 Objection 3: The Causal Principle is Suspect

This is the *only *valid objection; however, it can also be used against the modern scientific method, against observation itself! If the Causal Principle is true, then God exists, if it is false, then… Asking for evidence that God exists would be hypocritical if you seriously posit this.

3.5 Objection 4: The Conclusion is Contradictory

“In short, defenders of the cosmological argument defend the Causal Principle (or alternatively Principle of Sufficient Reason), but limit its application to contingent beings…”

False, the Causal Principle applies to God. He is the cause of His own existence i.e. his essence is existence i.e. “He Just Is.”
See Summa Theologica (Prima Pars, Q. 3, iv).

 

[Freebird]

I agree that we have evolved differently. But so has every species. There is no need for our sense of right and wrong to have to have been given us by God. It could have evolved.

So you agree that we have a sense of right and wrong. Where is your proof that that sense has evolved over time?

Economic benefits, ability to focus on other activities, waiting until the woman in a better position to have a child, etc.

Are you just playing dumb? Do you really not see benefits to a woman getting an abortion?

By artificial abortion I mean induced abortion. A miscarrige is an abortion. I was trying to distinguish between a miscarrige and an abortion that has been induced by a person.

Have you read any anthropology? Pre-agriculture humans lived a very different life than us. The costs of a non-productive individual were huge. Hunter-gathers value(d) human life in a way different from how we do. Post-agriculture humanity is only a small part of human history and the selection pressure has been lower post-agriculture.

Because of unselfish action can be benefical to genes. Why do animals commit unselfish acts? Insects act much more unselfishly (as individuals) than humans.

You see that it has benefits, but you don’t see why the individual would do it?

How? Insects cannot have the concious intention of doing something unselfishly (doing something without gaining absolutely any benefit to the insect performing the action).

I don’t see how establishing government would benefit that particular individual, if that individual is only concerned for his own situation…as you’ve argued?
I think it will be very difficult to go on without knowing exactly what your views on morality are. I know it varies from agnostic to agnostic, so if you could type those out I’d really appriciate it.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

So you agree that we have a sense of right and wrong. Where is your proof that that sense has evolved over time?

I am not saying that it did evolve. We just don’t have enough evidence to know. There is, however, evidence that points in that direction. I would suggest looking at the work of Robert Trivers or Steven Pinker.

Here is a Talk Origins about evolution and morality:
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB411.html

Where is your evidence that God gave man his moral sense?

How? Insects cannot have the concious intention of doing something unselfishly (doing something without gaining absolutely any benefit to the insect performing the action).

Why would they need to be concious of the intention to commit unselfish acts? If the behavior is genetic and benefits certain genes it will be more likely to expand through the population.

Why do you think insects commit unselfish acts? Why do ants risk their lives to defend the hive? Why do bees commit suicide attacks to protect other bees?

I don’t see how establishing government would benefit that particular individual, if that individual is only concerned for his own situation…as you’ve argued?

If you were on a boat that could pick between going to two islands. One that had a government that encourages cooperation and one that is in anarchy, which would you pick? Why?

You don’t see benefits to individuals to be a part of a system that encourages cooperation and defends against defection?

I think it will be very difficult to go on without knowing exactly what your views on morality are. I know it varies from agnostic to agnostic, so if you could type those out I’d really appriciate it.

I am sure what you are asking for. Could put this another way?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Is there something wrong with the board? I keep getting the following message:

PHP has encountered an Access Violation at 7C8224B2

Hope this goes through.

 

[Freebird]

I am not saying that it did evolve. We just don’t have enough evidence to know. There is, however, evidence that points in that direction. I would suggest looking at the work of Robert Trivers or Steven Pinker.

Here is a Talk Origins about evolution and morality:
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB411.html

Where is your evidence that God gave man his moral sense?

Probably unlike you, A.S., we believe that the Bible was directly and perfectly inspired by God, and in that text God (who essentially ‘wrote’ the flawless Book), created everything, but only man “in Our image.” (Our being, the Trinity.) This could mean that we simply look like God, but in the coming verses we see that God gives man dominion over animals, and has a special relationship with man, as he tells the humans, both Adam and Eve–and only Adam and Eve–not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, because He knows they have potential to disobey Him through the free will He bestowed on them.

“Human cooperation is an evolutionary puzzle.” (–from the Talk Origins article.)
Why should I conform to your viewpoint, when I actually have what I consider to be solid evidence?

Why would they need to be concious of the intention to commit unselfish acts? If the behavior is genetic and benefits certain genes it will be more likely to expand through the population.

Why do you think insects commit unselfish acts? Why do ants risk their lives to defend the hive? Why do bees commit suicide attacks to protect other bees?

For the same reason dictyostelium mucoroides do it–innate sense. Babies are not born with the inborn impulse to do whatever it takes to save another body, wheras ants and bees are. Face it: you probably wouldn’t jump in front of a bullet to save a stranger’s life, and neither would I. If your claim that certain, beneficial genes are more likely to expand through the population, how to you justify individual or joint action that results in no gain/immaterial gains?

If you were on a boat that could pick between going to two islands. One that had a government that encourages cooperation and one that is in anarchy, which would you pick? Why?

It suppose it would depend on how forceful the government is (“you don’t obey, you die,” ect, in which case I would pick Anarchy Island), but most likely the government inhabited island. But my question to you was about WHY the individual would even try to establish a government. What’s the benefit for himself? Because he is concerned for his fellow man? David Kelley once said, “If self-sacrifice is an ideal — if service to others is the highest, most honorable course of action–why not force people to act accordingly?”…and if one forces others, he rules, and it is now a benefit to himself to have power over others, in which the concern was not for his fellow man in the first place.

I am sure what you are asking for. Could put this another way?

Certainly…how do you believe people should live their lives? Should an individual only be concerned about his situation, and act accordingly? Do you believe there is good and evil? What do you believe humankind is working toward, if you don’t believe in an afterlife? And what’s the purpose of working toward that goal?

 

[Freebird]

Is there something wrong with the board? I keep getting the following message:

Hope this goes through.

Hmmm…not getting anything. Maybe it’s fixed?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Probably unlike you, A.S., we believe that the Bible was directly and perfectly inspired by God, and in that text God (who essentially ‘wrote’ the flawless Book), created everything, but only man “in Our image.” (Our being, the Trinity.) This could mean that we simply look like God, but in the coming verses we see that God gives man dominion over animals, and has a special relationship with man, as he tells the humans, both Adam and Eve–and only Adam and Eve–not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, because He knows they have potential to disobey Him through the free will He bestowed on them.

The whole subject for this thread is the evidence that this belief is true. Do you have evidence for these beliefs?

“Human cooperation is an evolutionary puzzle.” (–from the Talk Origins article.)
Why should I conform to your viewpoint, when I actually have what I consider to be solid evidence?

What is the solid evidence that you have?

For the same reason dictyostelium mucoroides do it–innate sense. Babies are not born with the inborn impulse to do whatever it takes to save another body, wheras ants and bees are. Face it: you probably wouldn’t jump in front of a bullet to save a stranger’s life, and neither would I. If your claim that certain, beneficial genes are more likely to expand through the population, how to you justify individual or joint action that results in no gain/immaterial gains?

But humans are born with an innate sense of cooperation. It is not strong enough for most people to jump in front of bullet to save a stranger, but that does not mean it does not exist.

But my question to you was about WHY the individual would even try to establish a government. What’s the benefit for himself? Because he is concerned for his fellow man?

Humans have evolved like other primates to live in groups. Groups that can divide labor and prevent defection from group strategy will be more likely to suceed and develop resources. The individuals of such a group will be more likely have more resources.

Certainly…how do you believe people should live their lives? Should an individual only be concerned about his situation, and act accordingly? Do you believe there is good and evil? What do you believe humankind is working toward, if you don’t believe in an afterlife? And what’s the purpose of working toward that goal?

I don’t believe in inherent good and evil or an afterlife. I also believe there is any goal that humans inherently are working towards. We all have to make choices (whether free or not) about how we are going to live our lives and how we want others to live theirs and what we are going to do to achieve the ends of our choices.